gemcraftfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:List of Fields in Gemcraft Chapter 2
Buku Rather than get into a mini-edit war, I thought I'd take the discussion here. Although Urban Dictionary suggests that "buku" comes to us from French (through Vietnamese), Wiktionary lists no Vietnamese usage under any spelling variant I tried. I suspect they're right about the French origin, though, as "beaucoup" in French does indeed mean "a lot". Regardless of its origins, however, "buku" is not listed in any English dictionary other than UD (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/buku, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/spellcheck/all/?q=buku, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/buku). As such, it's slang or, at best, a neologism. I would contend that it therefore shouldn't be used on the page. – Robin Hood (talk) 20:51, January 14, 2015 (UTC) :Although Wiktionary doesn't use "buku" due to it not being an english word, Wiktionary should not be a higher source reference than Urban Dictionary. One look at both sites is enough to determine that Urban is not only more professional than Wiktionary, but that it is far more credible. :Furthermore, if you nullify "buku" just because it is potentially regardable as slang in certain circles, you potentially insult vietnamese people as the flipside is the fact that it is simply a word in their language. If slang has anything to do with not including it, then not including it would be conceited. :In fact, wiktionary says "buku" means "book" in indonesian. You also say that UD is the the only English dictionary that uses the word. Then because Wiktionary uses the word at all, is not an english dictionary in any way at all, thus making it null and void as a credible source of reference. :And because it is a word in another language, but is otherwise still a word that has existed long before its use on this site, it is far from guilty of neologism, which is the act of coining/using/uttering a new word. "Buku" is not new; it is merely neglected because it is a word in another language. (it does not have to be in a second english dictionary to not be a neologic word, it has to be in a second dictionary regardless of language) :Plus, there is an English-Indonesian dictionary that uses the word. And while the meaning is different (reviewing/book), the word is still there, so once again, there is proof that it is not neologic.TD-Follower (talk) 21:55, January 14, 2015 (UTC) ::Both Wiktionary and Urban Dictionary are user-edited, however Wiktionary attempts to maintain dictionary-level standards, where Urban Dictionary pretty much allows anything at all. The primary criteria for whether a word should be included, though, is whether the word exists in professional dictionaries like the ones I cited. "Buku" is very much a new word in English, regardless of how old it might be in any other language. By your logic, any word in another language could be used here, yet I don't see a mix of languages on the site, I only see English words. Also, a neologism is language-specific. The fact that a word existed in some other language for years or even centuries does not preclude it being a neologism in English. For that matter, even a word that's existed in English itself can be a neologism if it has recently taken on a new meaning (e.g., "sick"). – Robin Hood (talk) 22:06, January 14, 2015 (UTC) ::As further proof, Urban Dictionary's own advertising describes itself as "the mammoth online dictionary for American slang". Buku can also be found in an Internet slang dictionary, and finally, Time lists it as slang as well (albeit music slang), though it says it's New Orleans French. Given all of the above proof that it's slang, I'm reverting to traditional English wording. – Robin Hood (talk) 02:10, January 15, 2015 (UTC) :::I suppose I will let it go as Wikia is still grwoing in terms of recognotion as a site with information about nearly everything. I just don't think it would be respectful to count out foreign words just because of their potential to be recognized as slang. For now, it is slang because this is America, home of the most prominent stereotypes, but elsewhere, it is not slang. :::Just remember that it is not always slang/neologic. It is new to English, but not to others. Plus, because of the potential the word has to mean "a lot" like in Vietnamese and because Wiktionary uses the Indonesian definition to define "buku", would it be possible for Wiktionary users to add that it also mean "a lot" in vietnamese? :::If that were possible, then things would be a little better.TD-Follower (talk) 12:43, January 15, 2015 (UTC) ::::I think your impression of slang is a bit negative compared to what I meant. Slang isn't intended to be negative, just something that you wouldn't normally use outside of, say, speaking to a friend or posting to a forum. In those contexts, "buku" is perfectly fine. If the GemCraft wiki chooses to be less formal, then "buku" would be acceptable here as well (though I'd still tend to avoid it, since people who don't interact on forums and such might not know what it means). Most wikis I've been on try to be at least a hint more formal than that, though, which is why I was arguing against it. ::::As for Wiktionary, I've only ever done a few edits there and I've never added any new words or meanings. I really don't know what they require in order to add a new word. If you have the patience for it (I don't :Þ), their Criteria for inclusion page is probably a good place to start. Oh, just after I posted, I found this page, which also looks like it might be a good place to add your word and see what the response is. – Robin Hood (talk) 19:15, January 15, 2015 (UTC) Additional Columns While it'll probably take a fair bit of work, it's certainly possible to add in the various structures, as suggested in this edit. I've done the shrines already on their own page. My one concern here is the presentation of all the different information. Do we want all of that in the table itself? If so, what's the best formatting? Adding columns would probably make the table stretch beyond the edge of the page (depending on resolution, of course). Would it be better to add more detailed information like this to individual field pages? – Robin Hood (talk) 18:27, January 22, 2015 (UTC)